The problem with Huntsman is that he has common sense. Let's face it that Cain, Bachman, and Perry are only in the hunt because they are socially conservative, even though they're proven to be complete idiots on issues that matters.

Here are three quotes that detail why he will never have a shot at winning the Republican ticket, and it explains why the party is beyond help.

HUNTSMAN: I think there's a serious problem. The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party – the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012. When we take a position that isn't willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Science – Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man's contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position.

HUNTSMAN: I believe in traditional marriage. I don't think you can redefine marriage from the traditional sense.

I'm for civil unions. I came out for civil unions a while ago. I think we can do a better job as it relates to overall equality, specifically as it relates to reciprocal beneficiary rights.

HUNTSMAN: We diminish our standing in the world and the values that we project which include liberty, democracy, human rights, and open markets when we torture. We should not torture. Waterboarding is torture. We dilute ourselves down like a whole lot of other countries. And we lose that ability to project values that a lot of people in corners of this world are still relying on the United States to stand up for them.

Sometimes being steadfast in your beliefs can be a good thing. Rarely if ever is it a good thing as president. Paul is so rigid that a steel beam is far more flexible, even in tower 7.

I appreciate his unwavering support of his own craziness but we are still trying to recover from one disater no need to end our society with a kill shot.

__________________
Thanks, Trump for the civics lesson. We are learning so much about impeachment, the 25th Amendment, order of succession, nepotism, separation of powers, 1st Amendment, obstruction of justice, the emoluments clause, Logan Act, conflicts of interest, collusion, sanctions, oligarchs, money laundering and so much more.

Problem is, conservatives are more concerned about abortion and gays and anti-evolution than they are about what's right for the country.

Please bring my party back from these assholes.

Good Point!

As a conservative, those issues are huge to me as a person, and I mostly disagree with Huntsman's take on them (except for the gay marriage issue where his stance is exactly the same as mine)... But on the issues that matter for him to be a President, he's one of the most reasonably conservative candidates. He's not nearly the Neo-Con that Romney is. If he could show that to the Tea Partiers, I think he'd clearly be in the lead.

“I don’t claim to be the perfect candidate,” Newt Gingrich told a South Carolina radio station last week, as he settled into his role as the latest not-Romney in the Republican race. “I just claim to be a lot more conservative than Mitt Romney and a lot more electable than anybody else.”

It’s a plausible line, evoking William F. Buckley Jr.’s often-quoted admonition that right-of-center voters should support the most electable conservative in any given race. But is it accurate? Not if you judge candidates on their record, rather than by their affect. By that standard, the most electable conservative remaining in the Republican race is probably Jon Huntsman.

Huntsman is branded as the Republican field’s lonely moderate, of course, which is one reason why he’s current languishing at around 3 percent in the polls. But as Michael Brendan Dougherty noted in a summertime profile for the American Conservative, Huntsman’s record as Utah’s governor isn’t “just to the right of other moderates, it is to the right of most conservatives.”

Huntsman has none of Romney’s health care baggage, and unlike the former Massachusetts governor, he didn’t spend the last decade flip-flopping on gun rights, immigration and abortion. Meanwhile, on many of the highest-profile issues of the primary season (the individual mandate, Paul Ryan’s House budget, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), he has arguably been more consistently conservative than Gingrich.

At the same time, because Huntsman is perceived as less partisan than his rivals, he has better general election prospects. The gears and tumblers of my colleague Nate Silver’s predictive models give Huntsman a 55 percent chance of knocking off the incumbent even if the economy grows at a robust 4 percent, compared to Romney’s 40 percent.

In theory, then, Huntsman seems like he could occupy the sweet spot that Gingrich claims to have all to himself. In practice, though, his campaign to date has been an unmitigated disaster.

This isn’t for want of substance. On issues ranging from foreign affairs to financial reform, Huntsman’s proposals have been an honorable exception to the pattern of gimmickry and timidity that has characterized the Republican field’s policy forays.

But his salesmanship has been staggeringly inept. Huntsman’s campaign was always destined to be hobbled by the two years he spent as President Obama’s ambassador to China. But he compounded the handicap by introducing himself to the Republican electorate with a series of symbolic jabs at the party’s base.

He picked high-profile fights on two hot-button issues — evolution and global warming — that were completely irrelevant to his candidacy’s rationale. He let his campaign manager define his candidacy as a fight to save the Republican Party from a “bunch of cranks.” And he embraced his identity as the media’s favorite Republican by letting the liberal journalist Jacob Weisberg write a fawning profile for Vogue.

This was political malpractice at its worst. Voters don’t necessarily need to like a candidate to vote for him, but they need to think that he likes them. Imagine a contender for the Democratic nomination introducing himself to liberal voters by attacking Planned Parenthood, distancing himself from “left-wing nutjobs” and giving a series of interviews on Fox News, and you have the flavor of how Huntsman’s opening act was perceived on the right. The substance mattered less than the symbolism, which screamed: I want your vote, but I don’t particularly care to be associated with your stupidities.

The campaign hasn’t repeated these mistakes, and Huntsman’s debating style — initially unctuous and tone-deaf — has improved with time. (His to-and-fro with Romney over Afghanistan in last week’s foreign policy debate was his best moment yet.) He’s polling at 11 percent in New Hampshire, his make-or-break state, which is much better than his national numbers. And every so often, a prominent conservative activist or blogger will write a “second look at Huntsman?” post: There was one from RedState’s Erick Erickson a few weeks ago, and one from HotAir’s pseudonymous Allahpundit last week.

In a sense, Huntsman’s best hope may be his relative invisibility. With name recognition numbers that lag his rivals by almost thirty percent, there’s still time for him to introduce himself to primary voters afresh. (At the very least, the ongoing implosion of Herman Cain’s campaign could buy him more face time in the next few debates.)

Time, but probably no real opportunity. As plausible a nominee as Huntsman may still be on paper, there was always going to be a narrow window for another wealthy Mormon governor with good hair and establishment credentials to elbow his way into the not-Romney space in the Republican field. Thanks to his own campaign’s blunders, that window may have closed several months ago.

Huntsman no doubt regrets those blunders. But it’s the Republican voters stuck choosing between Gingrich and Romney who may ultimately regret them even more.

When Obama campaign aides surveyed the field of Republican presidential hopefuls early on, they saw a certain handsome Mormon candidate and thought he’d be trouble in a general election showdown.

It wasn’t Mitt Romney.

Jon Huntsman is the former Utah governor who took a moderate stance in a GOP field that leaned to the right. He didn’t get very far in the Republican nomination fight, but team Obama viewed him as a serious candidate who could pose real problems in a general election.

“We were honest about our concerns about Huntsman,” Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said at a Politico breakfast event Tuesday. “I think Huntsman would have been a very tough candidate.”

As for the president, he liked Mr. Huntsman enough to appoint him ambassador to China in 2009. Mr. Messina, who was working in the White House at the time, said he helped Mr. Huntsman win Senate confirmation.

“As someone who helped manage his confirmation for Chinese ambassador, he’s a good guy,” Mr. Messina said. “We looked at his profile in a general election and thought he would have been” a formidable candidate. Politico’s video of the remarks is here.

Mr. Huntsman’s candidacy never caught on. In 2011, he sent out a tweet affirming that he believed in evolution and trusted “scientists on global warming.”

“Call me crazy,” Mr. Huntsman said at the time.

So, did the White House shuttle Mr. Huntsman off to China in hopes of forestalling a presidential bid? Was the Obama team looking to remove Mr. Huntsman from the “chessboard?” asked moderator Mike Allen of Politico.

“No, I thought he was a committed American who would serve our country well, and he did,” Mr. Messina replied.

Obama faces familiar world of problems in 2nd term
By BRADLEY KLAPPER and MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press
November 8, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — Now that his re-election is secured, President Barack Obama has a freer hand to deal with a world of familiar problems in fresh ways, from toughening America's approach to Iran and Syria while potentially engaging other repressive countries such as Cuba and North Korea and refocusing on moribund Middle East peace efforts.

The first tweaks in his Iran policy could come within weeks, officials said.

But a pressing task for Obama will be to assign a new team to carry out his national security agenda. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has announced her plans to retire but could stay a few weeks past January to help the administration as it reshuffles personnel. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is likely to depart shortly after her. CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus is expected to stay on.

The favorite to succeed Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, would face a difficult Senate confirmation process after her much-maligned explanations of the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, meaning she could land instead as Obama's national security adviser. That job that doesn't require the Senate's approval. Tom Donilon, who currently holds that position, and Chuck Hagel, a former Republican senator, are among the other contenders.

The chances of another early favorite, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, are hampered by Democrats' fear that Republican Scott Brown, who lost his Massachusetts Senate seat Tuesday, could win Kerry's seat in a race to replace him.

Officials, however, are pointing to Jon Huntsman, the former Utah governor, Obama's ambassador to China and Republican presidential candidate, and the State Department's current No. 2, William Burns.

Huntsman is still widely respected by the administration even if he'd hoped to unseat Obama. Choosing Huntsman would allow the president to claim bipartisanship while putting an Asia expert in the job at a time when the U.S. is focusing more attention on the world's most populous continent. Burns would be an option as caretaker secretary until postelection passions in Congress subside and a permanent replacement might face smoother confirmation. He is a career diplomat who has no political baggage and would be unlikely to stir significant opposition among lawmakers.

At the Pentagon, speculation about successors has been limited. Panetta's deputy, Ashton Carter, is seen as a possibility, along with Michele Flournoy, who served as Defense Department policy chief from 2009-12 and would be the first woman in the top job.

New Cabinet members will enter at a time of various global security challenges, from the Arab Spring to China's rapid economic and military expansion in Asia. But the president's escape from any future campaigning also offers unique diplomatic opportunities, which Obama himself hinted at in March when he told then-Russian president and current prime minister Dmitry Medvedev that he'd have "more flexibility" on thorny issues after the election.

Obama's immediate predecessors, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, used their second terms to launch major, though ultimately unsuccessful initiatives for an Israeli-Palestinian accord, an elusive goal that Obama also deeply desires. This summer he listed the lack of progress toward peace among the biggest disappointments of his presidency so far, suggesting another U.S. attempt in the offing.

Clinton's Camp David negotiations and Bush's Annapolis process became signature foreign policy priorities in 2000 and 2007. But the Israelis and the Palestinians remain as far apart as ever on the contours of an agreement, from the borders of their two separate states to issues related to refugees and resources.

Any Obama-led plan for the Middle East will be complicated by Israel's fears about the Iranian nuclear program, civil war in nearby Syria and the new reality of an Islamist-led Egypt having replaced America's most faithful Arab ally. Obama's difficult relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could also complicate the process.

With Iran, the president is holding out hope that crippling economic sanctions will force the Islamic republic's leaders to scale back its uranium enrichment activity. Iran insists its program is designed for energy and medical research purposes, even as many in the West fear the ultimate goal is to produce nuclear weapons. Obama has stressed the narrowing time frame for Tehran to negotiate a peaceful solution to the standoff, while pressing Israel to hold off on any plans for a pre-emptive strike.

Officials say the administration is likely to adjust its two-track approach to Iran — which offers Tehran rewards for coming clean on its nuclear program and harsher penalties for continued defiance — in the coming weeks. Details are still being debated. In the end, however, Obama may have to resort to a military strategy if Iran continues to enrich uranium at higher levels and nears production of weapons-grade material — a possible scenario he acknowledges.

"The clock is ticking. We're not going to allow Iran to perpetually engage in negotiations that lead nowhere," Obama said in his last foreign policy debate with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. "We have a sense of when they would get breakout capacity, which means that we would not be able to intervene in time to stop their nuclear program."

Syria's widening conflict is another concern. More than 36,000 people have died in the last 20 months, as a brutal crackdown on dissent by President Bashar Assad's regime has descended into a full-scale civil war. Obama has demanded Assad's departure, yet has ruled out military assistance to the rebels or American military actions such as airstrikes or enforcing a no-fly zone over Syria.

Last week, in a significant shift in policy, the secretary of state demanded a major shakeup in the opposition's ranks in the hopes of rallying Syrians behind the rebellion. However, Clinton's spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, reiterated Wednesday the administration still rejects the notion of providing weapons to anti-Assad fighters or any talk of armed intervention.

In other places, Obama's engagement efforts may get another look. After some success with a rapidly liberalizing Myanmar, there are hopes for democratic reforms and human rights advances in Cuba and North Korea, among others.

But short of a rapid change in attitude from these governments, Obama's options for a landmark breakthrough in U.S. diplomacy are limited. He won't be able to reach out to Havana until it frees the jailed U.S. contractor Alan Gross, while Pyongyang will have to denuclearize if it wants better relations with America — steps neither regime has shown a willingness to entertain. The recent re-election of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has halted chances for now of any rapprochement between Washington and Caracas.

In Afghanistan, the president will seek to stick to NATO's 2014 withdrawal date for most international troops, a central campaign promise. His administration has been trying unsuccessfully to jump-start peace negotiations between President Hamid Karzai's Western-backed government and the Taliban. The so-called reconciliation effort relies heavily on America's frustrating and unreliable ally Pakistan, where extremist groups such as al-Qaida and the Haqqani network will continue to face U.S. drone attacks.

Behind all the diplomatic efforts are larger questions of American geopolitical strategy. Obama had initial success improving U.S. relations with Russia, getting a nuclear arms-reduction pact in 2011, but has since seen America's former Cold War foe frustrate U.S. missile defense plans and hopes of an international consensus on Syria. The president has continued to trumpet the benefits of his Russia "reset" policy but may take a firmer stance against Moscow if it refuses to show compromise.

For economic reasons, China policy is less likely to change. The world's two biggest economies are deeply interdependent and, despite lingering disagreements over Beijing's currency exchange rates and intellectual property infringement, neither side will want to do anything that threatens a trade war and jeopardizes China's booming growth or America's still-fragile jobs recovery.

Sometimes being steadfast in your beliefs can be a good thing. Rarely if ever is it a good thing as president. Paul is so rigid that a steel beam is far more flexible, even in tower 7.

I appreciate his unwavering support of his own craziness but we are still trying to recover from one disater no need to end our society with a kill shot.

You're the one electing yourself to judge sanity? Or is a sample of your own brilliant intellect?

You know little about Paul. He would have had to govern by working with coalitions put together on particular issues. Since he's a little bit right and a little bit left. There's plenty of progressives that would like a different FP than we have currently. Take the libertarian wings of both parties and the paleocons in the R party and put them in the mix....Voila! You have a FP that matches what a large majority of Americans would like if polls are accurate.

He could have done the same on other issues too. You are ignorant. That's okay ignorance can be handled with education.

"Here's To The Crazy Ones. The misfits. The rebels. The trouble-makers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules, and they have
no respect for the status-quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify, or vilify them.
About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the
human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius.
Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world - are the ones who DO !"~ Steve Jobs